1. Field of the Invention
The subject invention relates to mounting systems for fixing a base on a surface having a two-dimensional pattern of mutually spaced mounting holes for receiving a fastener and, more specifically, relates to optical or honeycomb panels and tables, to systems for mounting optical and other components thereon, and to mounts for optical components and other objects.
2. Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement is made pursuant to the duty of disclosure imposed by law and formulated in 37 CFR 1.56(a). No representation is hereby made that information thus disclosed in fact constitutes prior art, inasmuch as 37 CFR 1.56(a) relies on a materiality concept which depends on uncertain and inevitably subjective elements of substantial likelihood and reasonableness, and inasmuch as a growing attitude appears to require citation of material which might lead to a discovery of pertinent material though not necessarily being of itself pertinent. Also, the following comments contain conclusions and observations which have only been drawn or become apparent after conception of the subject invention or which contrast the subject invention or its merits against the background of developments subsequent in time or priority.
Utility and advantages of honeycomb structures, panels and tables in various fields of technology are well known, as may, for instance, be seen from U.S. Pat. No. 3,784,146, by John W. Matthews, Ph.D., issued Jan. 8, 1974 and disclosing horizontal vibration isolation systems.
For an extensive tutorial discussion on optical honeycomb tables, reference may be had to the 1983-1984 Catalog by the subject assignee, Newport Corporation, pp. 3 et seq.
In this respect, by way of example and not by way of limitation, among the most sensitive applications to which optical tables are put are those involving interferometry, where tolerable relative displacements of reflective elements are measured in fractions of a micron and allowable table top bending or twisting is typically much less than a second of arc.
The rigidity of a panel or table used in optical research is one of the primary performance features and, for a given panel thickness and skin, depends largely on the shear modulus of the core. For these and related reasons, honeycomb cores are greatly preferred for very stable panel and table systems.
In the past, granite plates and slabs were frequently used in laser holography and interferometry work. However, while granite offers great stability, the great weight of granite slabs, and, above all, the need of threaded inserts in the slabs for securing components to granite surfaces, is increasingly displacing them from laboratories and similar environments. By contrast, a major advantage of honeycomb panels or tables is that their top skin or table leaf can be provided with tapped or threaded mounting holes for rigid attachment of components and component mounts on the table. If such mounting holes are present in a reasonable number, they only have a very minor effect on panel or table rigidity and strength.
However, even the provision of hundreds, or with larger tables, thousands of mounting holes in a grid pattern did not heretofore enable the user of the table to attach components or component mounts in an infinite number of positions on the optical table. In that respect, the mounting hole system has thus been inferior to the magnetic attraction system, in which component mounts are provided with magnets for an attachment thereof to the table in an infinite number of possible positions.
Of course, the magnetic mounting system restricts the choice of materials for the table leaf to those which are ferromagnetic. Considerations of cleanliness and thermal stability then narrow the choice typically to ferromagnetic stainless steel and Invar alloys. By contrast, less expensive non-magnetic stainless steel or aluminum may be employed, if attachment can be by way of mounting holes, rather than by magnetic attraction.
Another drawback of magnetic mounts is that their holding force with typical table materials decreases rapidly with decreasing thickness of the ferromagnetic table leaf, if such thickness is lower than three millimeters. Also, the more effective magnetic bases are bulkier than mechanical mounting bases. Moreover, magnetic attraction mounting systems should, of course, not be used where magnetism would affect an experiment, test or other setup.
An alternative, mounting by vacuum attraction, is frequently not attractive where the attraction will not hold over a longer period of time.
Mounts with wheeled bases are unsuitable for present purposes, as may, for instance, be seen from U.S. Pat. No. 1,784,382, by A. P. Ousdal, issued Dec. 9, 1930, for apparatus for utilizing solar radiations for therapeutic purposes, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,799,567, by Tokuzo Toda, issued Mar. 26, 1974. Mounts which simply stand on the table do not provide the frequently necessary rigidity and preservation of spatial relationship maintenance required among mounted optical components and their rigid table structure. This applies, for instance, to the mounting systems disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,357,268, by T. L. Richter, issued Dec. 12, 1967, U.S. Pat. No. 4,120,564, by R. Rios, issued Oct. 17, 1978, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,339,104, by M. V. Weidman, issued July 13, 1982, and showing collectively various optical cell, lens and mirror stands.
Mounting clamps and clamping systems of the type disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,652,152, by W. R. Thursby, issued Mar. 28, 1972, for an adjustable optical equipment holder, U.S. Pat. No. 3,936,156, by J. Shaw et al, issued Feb. 3, 1976 and showing various lens mounts, and U.S. Pat. 4,076,391, by S. Teiser, issued Feb. 28, 1978, are not practical or, in the main, are not even feasible in applications of the type herein under consideration.
Yet in research and development work, it is frequently important that optical and other components be positionable relative to each other in infinite variations of relative distances and positions.